$533 per month tax free child benefit !

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

I've got 3 kids.

It was sarcasm. And my kids don't go to "child care" my wife is a stay at home mom. I refuse to have strangers raise my kids.

As are both my daughter and my daughter in law. Both are stay at home moms just like my ex was when the kids were little. One makes some sacrifices like not going on fancy holidays.

[raab]

Originally Posted by rottie

Novel thought, how about supporting their own ?
I am 56, never drawn poggie, went back to school at 38 paid my own way . Not 1 dime from the tax payers in any form was available to help, no ei or student loans.
If you want kids, be prepared to sacrifice some things to raise them.
Don't expect others to do it, we pay enough in school taxes we don't need to pay more.

Your parents most likely received the family allowance to raise you… I'm sure if you could go back and tell them to do the responsible thing and not have kids because it will cost them a ton to raise you, you'd do it. Also I sure hope you don't plan on claiming CPP.

[Luxor]

Originally Posted by raab

Your parents most likely received the family allowance to raise you… I'm sure if you could go back and tell them to do the responsible thing and not have kids because it will cost them a ton to raise you, you'd do it. Also I sure hope you don't plan on claiming CPP.

It is literally painful to follow your logic in all your political comments.

I just dont understand your thinking process.

[DarkAisling]

Where is the highest amount ($533) a month documented?

Originally Posted by raab

It's explained nicely in this article how he expects to pay for it. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-care-benefits

I don't know what the highest amount is now, but despite the tax increases he is proposing, it looks like the program would work basically the same as it does now: with it being a graduated system. But, he is referencing his proposed plan with a different name (tying it to childcare?).

At one point, under Harper's plan, I collected $450 a month for #2 son. I now collect $90 a month under Harper's plan. The amount I receive for the "baby bonus" lowers each year as my income grows, and it is based on my previous year's tax return. I got my highest amount the year after I had been on maternity leave. I'll get less next year under Harper's plan.

Justin's top number (source please?) isn't a whole lot higher than the $450 I collected. I don't know anyone who collected more than $450, but I can't confirm that is the highest amount.

I suspect he's just playing with numbers to win the "poverty level vote."

Note that while I refer to "Harper's plan" the plan hasn't changed much in the last twenty years. This is what became of the "baby bonus" that most of our parents received for us (and what our more senior members received for their children).

This program is separate from the taxable "Universal Childcare Benefit."

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by alacringa

I'm finding it really hard not to swear right now. In the '80s, when my dad was unemployed, our family of 5 lived off hard-earned savings and my mom working at the fish counter at the local grocery. When you're making money, you save it up for when you don't. It's basic common sense. If you can't manage that simple task, you shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

In the 80's my folks both lost their main jobs for a while, with 2 kids....my Dad refused to not work and went to the town and offered to dump garbages and cut grass in the parks for a few weeks till he found another meat cutting job... interest rates were 13-18% on mortgages and half the street had their keys in the mailbox.

If someone wants to work...there is work to be had.

LC

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by roper1

Yessir, saved enough to retire early & well while you were at it. Saved lots along the way in case of a rainy day. Novel idea I wish more embraced.....

Exactly, I worked in a location many people would not want to work in,I worked a lot of hours in my younger days, and I didn't pile up debts and pay high interest rates on them, like many people do. I lived within my means, put away money for my retirement, and I have always worked to support myself and my family, rather than depend on someone else to support me. The funny thing is, most of my friends did the same, and we all retired in our mid 50s.

Then again, most of us grew up without a lot of the things that most people feel that they need today, so we learned to appreciate what we had.

[norwestalta]

Did Denmark or Norway not pay the mothers to stay at home? Thought I heard that somewhere. Makes sense to me in the logic of it. Less women in the work force meant more men in the work force.
I also thought the quebecers were paid to stay at home and have big families while the rest of Canada went to work.
If it helps populate Canada with our own giv'er.

Hope this didn't come out sexist because that is not what was intended.

[marxman]

The benefits should be every month like the baby bonus not on the income tax return. And we should cut somewhere else to fund child benefits. Maintaining our population goals by bringing in foreigners is not a plan for a real country. Everybody thats too mean to pay for child benefits are the same people against immigration so something doesnt add up but they are too mean to make a choice.

[EZM]

We received a child benefit check ........... good thing I've likely paid 300 bucks in taxes for every dollar I get back !!!!!!

This program really needs to be targeted to those people that it could really help.

As far as I'm concerned - very poorly administered. This should be available only to families with an income below X. And give them a bit more. Isn't that the intended design?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by marxman

The benefits should be every month like the baby bonus not on the income tax return. And we should cut somewhere else to fund child benefits. Maintaining our population goals by bringing in foreigners is not a plan for a real country. Everybody thats too mean to pay for child benefits are the same people against immigration so something doesnt add up but they are too mean to make a choice.

It' has nothing to do with being mean, it's about being self sufficient and living within your means, instead of depending on others to support you. It's about contributing to society, rather than being a burden on society.


As to the people than mention Denmark, I doubt that you would enjoy paying the taxes that they pay. The tax rates are so high, that much of the incentive to work is lost. Why work hard to get ahead, when the government just takes your money to give to those that don't work?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly, I worked in a location many people would not want to work in,I worked a lot of hours in my younger days, and I didn't pile up debts and pay high interest rates on them, like many people do. I lived within my means, put away money for my retirement, and I have always worked to support myself and my family, rather than depend on someone else to support me. The funny thing is, most of my friends did the same, and we all retired in our mid 50s.

Then again, most of us grew up without a lot of the things that most people feel that they need today, so we learned to appreciate what we had.

Yes and you got a best case scenario. There are a whole lot more/majority of Canadians that sacrificed as much or more, lived within their means, saved their money in careers without those benefits, plans and pensions throughout their working career. They raised their kids paid for it all themselves without gov't help and are now looking into a retirement that at best could be described as dismal, frightening really.

Look at the way veterans are being treated, the way pensioners are treated, if you are not a tax payer or a child bearer you are treated like disposable garbage

[Bushrat]

I can see all the usless drug addicted and alcoholic non working welfare types who already use children as a career through the welfare system rubbing their hands in glee looking at each child they have as nothing more than a source of income. If this happens we are going to reap what we have sewn in the form of a tide of troubled children growing up in dysfunctional families who only have these children as a means to an end. The drug dealers and gangs will benefit greatly. As Rug says 'enjoy the decline'

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Yes and you got a best case scenario. There are a whole lot more/majority of Canadians that sacrificed as much or more, lived within their means, saved their money in careers without those benefits, plans and pensions throughout their working career. They raised their kids paid for it all themselves without gov't help and are now looking into a retirement that at best could be described as dismal, frightening really.

Look at the way veterans are being treated, the way pensioners are treated, if you are not a tax payer or a child bearer you are treated like disposable garbage

Then again, a lot of people could have had the job that I did, but many refused to relocate to another province, and live in an isolated northern community. I personally offered jobs to several people that liked the pay and benefits, but would not live in our city. Our pay and benefits were to a large part based on the location .

[SBE2]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Yes and you got a best case scenario. There are a whole lot more/majority of Canadians that sacrificed as much or more, lived within their means, saved their money in careers without those benefits, plans and pensions throughout their working career. They raised their kids paid for it all themselves without gov't help and are now looking into a retirement that at best could be described as dismal, frightening really.

It is not the responsibility of society and others to be on the hook for your lack of foresight. The lack of economic or savings education for many in the 45+ years age range is becoming increasingly frightening. If you can't do some math and look ahead at what its going to take to survive it is only your fault. If you rely on the lie that the company pension will be enough, you're a fool. If you don't save a bit more and choose to spend money on smokes/booze/trips/toys whatever, you have created your own destiny, not anyone else's fault. Nobody is saying you didn't work hard, but your future is your responsibility. When future living costs are far out pacing your pension plan or realistic retirement goals you need to look at what you can cut or if you can work a bit more to have more to save. Too many people want to blame everybody else or are blind to the fact that they were outworked or out sacrificed by those that will be ok in their later years, yet they think they should have the same of those with some foresight. It's the truth, and it's happening more and more, we have yet to see the big wave of people that are about to realize freedom 55 is a pipe dream, freedom 65 could be a stretch, and Walmart greeter at 70-75 is the more likely reality. There are many in their 50's that are so beyond screwed that they don't even know it yet that it's scary, but it is their responsibility to look ahead not for others to fund there lack of interest or involvement in the financial stability of their future and retirement. My 2 cents...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

I can see all the usless drug addicted and alcoholic non working welfare types who already use children as a career through the welfare system rubbing their hands in glee looking at each child they have as nothing more than a source of income. If this happens we are going to reap what we have sewn in the form of a tide of troubled children growing up in dysfunctional families who only have these children as a means to an end. The drug dealers and gangs will benefit greatly. As Rug says 'enjoy the decline'

Sadly, I believe that this will happen.The more benefits that are offered, the more hogs will line up at the trough.

[Talking moose]

When a govt try's to stimulate population growth with incentives, are they not forseeing a severe shortage demograph of an age group of workers in the future? Sounds logical, might even quash TFW program..... I don't know, just throwing ideas out there...

[dmcbride]

I like (not) all the people who complain about all the rights and freedoms the Harper government has taken away.

It is nothing compared to what the NDP or Libs. have got in store. What about the right to better ones self and make more money? Most of there policies are designed to take money from the people who work hard and try to get ahead in life to give to the entitled, lazy people who just want to live off the government. What a great way to make this countries people more like sheep. Don't even get me started on the gun control.

[Luxor]

Originally Posted by EZM

We received a child benefit check ........... good thing I've likely paid 300 bucks in taxes for every dollar I get back !!!!!!

This program really needs to be targeted to those people that it could really help.

As far as I'm concerned - very poorly administered. This should be available only to families with an income below X. And give them a bit more. Isn't that the intended design?

Very true

But maybe those who really dont need it could donate it to a charity???

Or maybe send it to Trudeau as a campaign contribution and say its from Harper

[abhunter8]

Originally Posted by Mountain Adventurer

A Liberal government will send families a tax-free, monthly Canada Child Benefit worth up to $533 a month per child.

Harpers plan $275 a month, just not good enough for this cowboy

That is ridiculous! Liberal gov't... Let's not have a credible leader or platform so let's buy some votes!

This is a great way to encourage society to pump out more kids and sit on your ass at home. Ya, that's what this country needs!

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Sadly, I believe that this will happen.The more benefits that are offered, the more hogs will line up at the trough.

Nailed it. Hogs at the trough and the dippers and liebrals want to make it worse.

Look at the way the UK safety net has evolved, it used to be the "dole" then it was "benefits" now it's become "entitlements". It's sad how lefties feel the need to mollycoddle the lazy.

[dmac]

Need more money for crack and booze, have another child. Bad plan.

[NorthShore]

Originally Posted by raab

This could also be seen as an economic stimulus as it would be giving the vast majority of Canadians with little disposable income more income to spend and help keep the economy going.

Governments get money from the people. If you take money, lose a bunch on administration fees, and give it back is anyone really coming out ahead?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by NorthShore

Governments get money from the people. If you take money, lose a bunch on administration fees, and give it back is anyone really coming out ahead?

Everyone loses.

[raab]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

Where is the highest amount ($533) a month documented?



I don't know what the highest amount is now, but despite the tax increases he is proposing, it looks like the program would work basically the same as it does now: with it being a graduated system. But, he is referencing his proposed plan with a different name (tying it to childcare?).

At one point, under Harper's plan, I collected $450 a month for #2 son. I now collect $90 a month under Harper's plan. The amount I receive for the "baby bonus" lowers each year as my income grows, and it is based on my previous year's tax return. I got my highest amount the year after I had been on maternity leave. I'll get less next year under Harper's plan.

Justin's top number (source please?) isn't a whole lot higher than the $450 I collected. I don't know anyone who collected more than $450, but I can't confirm that is the highest amount.

I suspect he's just playing with numbers to win the "poverty level vote."

Note that while I refer to "Harper's plan" the plan hasn't changed much in the last twenty years. This is what became of the "baby bonus" that most of our parents received for us (and what our more senior members received for their children).

This program is separate from the taxable "Universal Childcare Benefit."

It's in the article. 6400 for Children less then 6 and 5400 for Children between 6-17. They say it will be based on income, also it's tax free unlike the UCCB.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Nailed it. Hogs at the trough and the dippers and liebrals want to make it worse.

Look at the way the UK safety net has evolved, it used to be the "dole" then it was "benefits" now it's become "entitlements". It's sad how lefties feel the need to mollycoddle the lazy.

But those lazy people get to vote, and of course they are going to vote for those that keep filling the trough.

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by raab

It's in the article. 6400 for Children less then 6 and 5400 for Children between 6-17. They say it will be based on income, also it's tax free unlike the UCCB.

Oops. Didn't do the math. Thank you.

The CCTB (Child Tax Benefit . . . former "Baby Bonus") is tax free. While the article seems to be tying Justin's program to childcare, I think his program would be a revision to the CCTB and not the UCCB.

Canada has two programs, which all families with children 17 and under are eligible to apply for. CCTB (generally the larger amount) is not taxable. UCCB is taxable. I spend a lot of time explaining this to my male colleagues, who had no idea two deposits from the government were winding up in their wives bank accounts on a monthly basis.

I can't see how he could possibly propose to keep the CCTB as it is and make these changes to the UCCB. That would make the federal government's max child payments in the $1000 range (per child!).

But, something to keep in mind is that amount would lower the amount the province paid in welfare cheques. People who were on the dole wouldn't have any more money on a monthly basis: they'd receive more from the federal government and less from the provincial government.

I honestly feel JT is just messin' with the numbers and people's heads.

[Sledhead71]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It' has nothing to do with being mean, it's about being self sufficient and living within your means, instead of depending on others to support you. It's about contributing to society, rather than being a burden on society.

Have to agree with the above.

[raab]

Originally Posted by NorthShore

Governments get money from the people. If you take money, lose a bunch on administration fees, and give it back is anyone really coming out ahead?

You guys are missing the point. Trudeau isn't taking more money as it looks like the vast number of it will come from redesigning the tax plan. Getting rid of the Income Splitting, using the current UCCB and child care benefits, cancelling the TFSA increase, and restricting it to household income under 150,000. This is truly a great initiative put forward. It's not coming in the form of more taxes. Also for guys complaining about the Child Care Benefit, you should all realize that it most likely helped your parents raise you! The family allowance has been around since 1945.

[FishingMOM]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

Where is the highest amount ($533) a month documented?



I don't know what the highest amount is now, but despite the tax increases he is proposing, it looks like the program would work basically the same as it does now: with it being a graduated system. But, he is referencing his proposed plan with a different name (tying it to childcare?).

At one point, under Harper's plan, I collected $450 a month for #2 son. I now collect $90 a month under Harper's plan. The amount I receive for the "baby bonus" lowers each year as my income grows, and it is based on my previous year's tax return. I got my highest amount the year after I had been on maternity leave. I'll get less next year under Harper's plan.

Justin's top number (source please?) isn't a whole lot higher than the $450 I collected. I don't know anyone who collected more than $450, but I can't confirm that is the highest amount.

I suspect he's just playing with numbers to win the "poverty level vote."

Note that while I refer to "Harper's plan" the plan hasn't changed much in the last twenty years. This is what became of the "baby bonus" that most of our parents received for us (and what our more senior members received for their children).

This program is separate from the taxable "Universal Childcare Benefit."

Isn't it funny Shelly how many of these guys are upset about what parents get today but how many have asked their moms what they collected as a baby bonus for them all those years ago.
Right now I pay taxes on what Harper gives me.

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by raab

Also for guys complaining about the Child Care Benefit, you should all realize that it most likely helped your parents raise you! The family allowance has been around since 1945.

The Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB . . . not taxed) has been around in various forms for decades. The Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB . . . taxable) is much more current, and has been around for less than a decade.

There are two programs. Only people who are getting the cheques in their bank account really understand this. To be clear, I do get both.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/cctb/

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/uccb/